THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the\nRevenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets\ncreated based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years.\nIn the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a\ncontradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle\nthat the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

41 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nCategory E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\n- The provisions of section 270A

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

41 Thus, the core issue revolves around whether the issuance of the Section 148 notice on April 19, 2022, for AY 2015-16, falls within the permissible time limits or not? 7.3 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to mention the relevant provisions of the Act as it stood then which are as follows- Time limit for notice

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\n- The provisions of section 270A

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\nThe provisions of section 270A

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the allowability of depreciation on identical assets created based on identical business transfer agreement in earlier years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the Revenue cannot take a contradictory stand in the year under consideration. The settled principle that the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\nThe provisions of section 270A

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

41 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nCategory E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

41 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nCategory E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

41 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nCategory E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

41 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nCategory E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe